Phil Jones, keeper of the records, has refused FOIA requests and it may well be his records are such a mess that he can not produce the data or even thet he can’t find it. This craters the IPCC predictions because it can no longer be documented. In addition, there is real disagreement as to whether that stations were reporting accurately, given that at least some were moved during the measurement period..

The data is crucial to the famous “hockey stick graph” used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Some meteorologists break with science of global warming

“It has become completely political — it’s not about science at all,” he wrote in an e-mail. “If science were the objective, then we would be seeing an entirely different debate. But there are agendas at play, and it has undermined the credibility of climate science.”

This is undeniable, on both sides too. However, sloppy datakeeping and deliberate evasions by climate change scientists have done serious and continuing damage to the credibility of everyone in the field. For a start, Phil Jones should be fired.

3 thoughts on “Climate change data used by IPCC can not be verified”

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

The Daily Mail headline:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Right.

but the text is more reasonable, if also, well, wrong:

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no â€˜statistically significantâ€™ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

As is common, the most egregious behavior is by the anonymous headline writer. The journalist, Jonathan Petre, can claim innocence, except for the peculiar use of the word “blip” showing a mind boggling lack of understanding of statistics for someone reporting on science, but at least an attempt at fairness.

Defenders of the press, explain this one. And explain where the world gets redress from this.